Troubled Heritage. Monica Lovinescu and the Aesthetical Tradition in Romanian Literary Historiography Oana Fotache After December 1989, the Romanian literary field entered a troubled phase of revision that affected both its self-perception and sense of history. It then emerged from a long period of totalitarianism that had established its functioning as a permanently negotiated conflict between the political and the aesthetical principles. All of a sudden the ideological debates seemed superfluous precisely because they had been constitutive of this semi-autonomous field; and a long and difficult process of reconsidering the literary past began. This triggered an expansion towards the literary production of the Romanian exile, an impressive revaluation of autobiographical literature (diaries, memoirs of interwar intellectuals, prison literature, a.s.o.), and consequently a critical revisiting of the literary canon. One major effect of this broadening of the scope and stakes of Romanian literature has been the accessibility (if not the proper assessment) of Monica Lovinescu’s critical work for the Romanian literary public. Monica Lovinescu (1923-2008), the daughter of the modernist literary critic and historian Eugen Lovinescu, had left Romania in 1947 to settle in Paris, where she joined the circle of exile intellectuals in opposition to the communist regime. Since 1962 she had become an editor of Radio Free Europe in Paris, for which she produced the weekly broadcasts “Teze și antiteze la Paris” [Theses and antitheses in Paris] and then “Actualitatea culturală românească” [Romanian cultural news], from 1967 on. Most of her radio chronicles, that had a huge impact in the Romanian literary field for almost 3 decades, came out in the ‘90s (1990-1996) by Humanitas Publishing, in 6 volumes. Although her essential contribution to the functioning of the critical and democratic spirit in the Romanian literary field during communism had been repeatedly underlined by the most important critics and historians after 1989, her work has not yet been thoroughly analyzed with respect not only to her literary and public influence, but also to her theoretical principles and bearings. Since the ‘trademark’ of her critical activity had always been the direct reaction to the most recent position takings in the literary field, a contextualizing of her work seems all the more necessary and relevant. 1 The present paper endeavors such an analysis of her place within the Romanian historiographical tradition represented by such personalities as E. Lovinescu and G. Călinescu. I will be focusing on the historiographical, and not just the critical tradition (though the two discourses are interrelated, especially during the first half of the 20 th century) because the most relevant stake in Monica Lovinescu’s battles is the survival of the interwar tradition and its rituals of normality; also because, while writing and performing her chronicles for Radio Free Europe, she is acting in the historical-literary field in a direct manner, by influencing opinions and prompting attitudes from various groups that were engaged in the aesthetical-ideological debates of the time. The reception of Monica Lovinescu’s literary critical work after 1989 generally emphasized her ethical stance and her ‘outsidedness’ to the Romanian literary field (both valued either positively or negatively). Thus several histories of Romanian literature that came out after 2000 evaluate her critical action as a form of direct and effective reaction to the developments under way in her home country, from the 1960s on. Alex Ștefănescu 1 compares her role in establishing literary and ethical hierarchies to that of a supreme court of justice, as she was highly respected in the avant-garde circles. For Nicolae Manolescu 2, her friend and fellow militant for literary autonomy, her criticism is to be placed in an almost transcendental perspective (“All of us had listened to her as to a sacred voice...” 3; “a literary columnist that became a living legend 4”). Yet the following lines of the chapter dedicated to Monica Lovinescu in his Critical History of Romanian Literature take a certain distance since Manolescu considers the ethical turn as decisive in her literary judgments. These judgments function complementarily to those expressed by the critics who actually lived in Romania during communism: Monica Lovinescu’s analyses deal especially with the content of the literary works and with the socio- political context, “paying less attention to the artistic level” 5. Though highly appreciative, Manolescu’s tone becomes ambiguous as he 1 Alex Ștefănescu, History of Contemporary Romanian Literature, 1941-2000. Bucharest: Mașina de scris, 2005, p. 697 (in Romanian in original: Istoria literaturii române contemporane ). Unless otherwise specified, the translations from Romanian are mine. 2 Nicolae Manolescu, A Critical History of Romanian Literature. 5 Centuries of Literature. Pitești: Paralela 45, 2008 (in Romanian in original: Istoria critică a literaturii române ). 3 “Noi toți am ascultat-o cu sfințenie” (in Romanian in original). Ibid., p. 1206. 4 “un cronicar literar devenit legendă vie” (in Romanian in original). Ibid. 5 “acordând o mai mică atenție artisticului” (in Romanian in original). Ibid., p. 1209. 2 underlines her moral stance and the documentary value of her criticism. He makes recourse to the long-employed metaphor of the mirror that points to a realistic method and vision not quite prized by the author of oah’s Ark 6 (where the category of the Doric applies to the first and most unrefined stage of novelistic technique): “We look into her books as if they were a mirror that does not always reflect us as we wish, or we fancy ourselves; yet from this image, that reaches us from afar, confronted with our dramatic personal experience, we learn to know ourselves better.” 7 Though unfair, trivial, and failing to recognize the sense of her criticism, Marian Popa, a left-wing ideological adversary of Monica Lovinescu’s, comments upon the same dominant principles in her chronicles: the ethical criterion and the militant stance 8. From a different (ideological) perspective, Cornel Ungureanu, one of the first literary historians to study the phenomenon of the exile in its connections with the literary culture in the home country, praised her involvement in the political battles of the literary field, but adds that “precisely this involvement sacrifies, in some cases, the aesthetic truth of the literary work. Or brackets it.” 9 Her position in the literary field seems thus to be distanced from both the avant-garde, aesthetical pole, and the ideological, party-controlled one. The advantages of such a position are certain, if one thinks of Starobinski’s theory of critical reading 10 , or, more recently, of Franco Moretti’s concept of ‘distant reading.’ 11 Monica Lovinescu herself comments on this/ her view in a chronicle from the third volume of 6 Nicolae Manolescu, Arca lui oe. Eseu despre romanul românesc . Bucharest : 1001 Gramar, 1998 (in Romanian in original). 7 Nicolae Manolescu, A Critical History of Romanian Literature. 5 Centuries of Literature. Pitești: Paralela 45, 2008, pp. 1210-11 (in Romanian in original: “Ne privim în ele [cărțile ei] ca într-o oglindă, care nu ne arată totdeauna nici cum am dori, nici cum ne închipuim, dar din această imagine, care ne vine de departe, confruntată cu dramatica noastră experiență personală, învățăm să ne cunoaștem mai bine.”) 8 Marian Popa, History of Romanian Literature From Today to Tomorrow. Bucharest : Semne, 2009. Vol. II, pp. 1055-1057 (in Romanian in original: Istoria literaturii române de azi pe mâine ). 9 Cornel Ungureanu, West of Eden. An Introduction to Exile Literature [La Vest de Eden. O introducere în literatura exilului]. Timișoara: Amarcord, 1995, p. 173 (in Romanian in original: “tocmai această implicare sacrifică, în unele cazuri, adevărul estetic al operei. Sau îl aşază în paranteze.”). 10 See, for instance, Jean Starobinski, La Relation critique . Paris: Gallimard, 1970. 11 As illustrated by Moretti’s Graphs, Maps, Trees. Abstract Models for Literary History. London & New York: Verso, 2005. 3 Short Waves : the foreigner’s perspective is part of a contemporary posterity (also the title of this volume) that explains the failure of Romanian epic literature (with very few exceptions) to stir the interest of the Western reader. This failure is due to the mistaken belief that aesthetic value as such could guarantee literary success, and not the actual circumstances related to context and reception (6 March 1981) 12 . Yet one major disadvantage, in a historical perspective, is that such a position (and such an actor in the literary field) has little chances of being appropriated and truly integrated in the intellectual conversation. The idea that her chronicles represented an alternative both to the official literary ideology and to the aesthetic principles that were structuring the Romanian literary criticism of the time is emphasized by Gheorghe Grigurcu in the entry on Monica Lovinescu for The Dictionary of Romanian Writers 13 . Grigurcu defends her position against the biased critics and ideologists that, supporting the official party propaganda, accused Monica Lovinescu of stepping aside the aesthetical tradition (thus the argument of the autonomous pole in the field was being turned against her). This blame is perversely constructed since it also implied a denial of the father figure from her part, a refusal of his heritage (expressed by such canonical texts as Titu Maiorescu and His Critical Posterity from 1943, or the volume on “Evolution of literary criticism”, part of his History of Contemporary Romanian Literature, 1926-1929). 14 Her politicized ethos was actually masking the same aesthetic principle, comments Grigurcu in his attempt to reconcile Monica Lovinescu with the ‘good’ critics in the country (who practiced, as he admits, only a moderate courage and told partial truths). His reading situates Monica Lovinescu in Maiorescu’s line, setting the direction for a literature who had long lost its course: “M.